From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Beardsley v. Frame

Supreme Court of California
Oct 29, 1887
73 Cal. 634 (Cal. 1887)

Opinion

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Del Norte County, and from an order refusing a new trial.

         COUNSEL:

         L. F. Coburn, and Sawyer & Burnett, for Appellant.

          R. W. Miller, for Respondents.


         JUDGES: In Bank. Foote, C. Belcher, C. C., and Hayne, C., concurred.

         OPINION

          FOOTE, Judge

          [15 P. 311] The notice of appeal is the initiatory step taken in the Superior Court in order to obtain a hearing upon appeal in this court. That notice must be signed by the attorney of record in that court. (Prescott v. Salthouse , 53 Cal. 221; affirmed in Whittle v. Renner , 55 Cal. 395.)

         Being a proceeding which must be commenced in the Superior Court where the trial was had, it is not necessary that the attorney who there conducts it shall be entitled to practice law and be heard in that capacity in this court, provided he be qualified to act and is the attorney of record in the court below.

         The motion to dismiss the appeal should be denied.

         The Court. -- For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.


Summaries of

Beardsley v. Frame

Supreme Court of California
Oct 29, 1887
73 Cal. 634 (Cal. 1887)
Case details for

Beardsley v. Frame

Case Details

Full title:W. H. BEARDSLEY, Assignee etc., Appellant, v. FRANK FRAME et al.…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 29, 1887

Citations

73 Cal. 634 (Cal. 1887)
15 P. 310

Citing Cases

Nave v. Taugher

He was therefore the only attorney authorized to sign a notice of motion for a new trial or a notice of…

Bashore v. Lamberson

Respondent raises the question as to whether this is a valid notice of appeal, citing authorities to the…